Schools that will drop in the 2008 US NEWS rankings...

[prelaw200]

My gripe has nothing to do with choosing where I will attend.

If you are going to go through the motions of creating a quantifiable evaluative system, why not trust it and rank the schools accordingly?

The fact that they are tied in the 8-9-10 slot has nothing to do with them all being great schools (which they are).  It has to do with placing at least three PUBLIC schools in the top 10!

But more seriously, Boalt has consistently been out of the top 10, and was as low as 13 in 2004.

http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_rankings__1987_1999

http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_rankings__2000_present

hth

[JTcc]

You make a good point.  Michigan has fallen to this position, while Boalt has risen.  For this year's purposes, however, calling the three public schools in the top ten a wash is a politically correct cop out.

[JTcc]

Perhaps I am overestimating the extent to which the outcome is engineered; maybe the formula simply produces that outcome. 

Examine 2002 when these same three schools and Penn were in an unwieldy four-way tie.  I consider it PC that USNews, in order to avoid upsetting the school that happened to be a modicum shy of the others by placing it last amongst them, deems their proximity a defacto tie.  Especially when you are discussing this tier of schools, finding grounds for differentiation should be a necessity.

My argument, as I say, rests upon the premise that you are going to employ rankings as a tool at all.  If it's there for us to use, make it as precise as possible.  If Boalt is 10th and Michigan is 8th, say so.     

[JTcc]

Pourquoi?

Even the current rankings demonstrate significantly wider ties at the lower levels.

[JTcc]

It's a good thing for the schools themselves, no question.  They ALL get to say "we are the highest ranked public law school in the country."

It is not, however, good for us if we are intended to place any credence in these rankings.

[JTcc]

No debate is ever finished, but I do see the merit in admitting your own system's faults.  I just want my $14.95 back if they're afraid to tell me whether they think I should go to Michigan or UVA (if they accept me).

[flyaway]

You know... if it really appears too close to call... that is, if the difference is so neglibile that to distinguish would seem arbitrary... wouldn't you rather see a tie?

It's just like in judged sports... I hate tiebreakers for the sake of tiebreakers.  If the athletes did equally well, why not let each of them stand on the top of the podium?

[JTcc]

I prefer a system that eliminates the tie.  Breaking a really close tie may be MORE arbitrary, but if there is a justification, it's not meaningless.  Give me the number along with the ranking.  They're not all 78's.  One is a 77.9, one is a 78.2, etc.

The reason they won't take us out to the next decimal place is that the Dean of  77.6 wants his "top public" tagline.

If I'm going to attend UPenn's 79 over UVA's 78, maybe I would attend Michigan's 78.4 over Boalt's 77.6.

[flyaway]

I feel that in a system that is not truly scientific, there can be small numeric differences that are insignificant.  They don't really represent superiority of one over the other.  I would rather see these schools grouped together than have one purported to be better than the other.

[i41m]

I prefer a system that eliminates the tie.  Breaking a really close tie may be MORE arbitrary, but if there is a justification, it's not meaningless.  Give me the number along with the ranking.  They're not all 78's.  One is a 77.9, one is a 78.2, etc.

The reason they won't take us out to the next decimal place is that the Dean of  77.6 wants his "top public" tagline.

If I'm going to attend UPenn's 79 over UVA's 78, maybe I would attend Michigan's 78.4 over Boalt's 77.6.

I think you're conspiracy theory here is unfounded. What makes you think that these deans have any pull with usnews, especially since they've all denounced the rankings (http://www.lsac.org/LSAC.asp?url=lsac/deans-speak-out-rankings.asp)? And why would one dean have more pull than another?

The resolution of the rankings are already stretched beyond their limits (see Baylor's 7 slot jump by using a different method of reporting) but just because some rankings are differentiated to an absurd degree (penn vs uva) that doesn't justify making even more silly differentiations.

US News' rankings would probably be more ethically presented if they did more grouping (not less). Perhaps something similar to Leiter's rankings for faculty placement: http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2006job_teaching.shtml